Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on November 11, 2018 at 4:41am

I believe secretarial signatures do have some value. Obviously, it would be a fraction of a genuine signature. Value would depend on the scarcity of the celebrity. Perhaps 10% compared to a genuine example.

The big issue is secretarial pieces being sold as authentic. As with any collectible, the true value is what someone is willing to pay for it. As long as it's being described accurately; all is fair.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gabriela Vassa on November 11, 2018 at 12:02pm

10% sounds quite fair and yes, if they still are of interest to the collector after he knows that it is actually a secretarial autograph, then it should be no problem in selling them etc. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Strecker on November 11, 2018 at 5:17am

I trash any single signed photo which was signed by a secretary and if I have a photo with multiple autographs and one is secretarial I attempt to remove the autograph, though not all attempts were successful. To me, they are worse than autopens and pre prints if they were to be resold. At least with prints one can kind of tell it may be a fake. With a personalized, hand signed photo signed by a secretary one may think "it's personalized, it has to be real."

I know secretary's hearts and minds may be in the "right" place but it still stings as a fan and collector that we aren't getting the real thing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gabriela Vassa on November 11, 2018 at 11:58am

I completely agree with you on the ah, stinging point. I have discovered some secretarial autographs in our family collection which we for more that 40 years thought were the "real thing" and it was such a disappointment for us all, especially for my mother who spent her teens collecting them and was so proud of having some remarkable ones - like e.g. Elvis.. only to find out decades later that she was "fooled" by a secretary.. 

With prints one at least knows for sure what he/she has got.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on November 11, 2018 at 12:09pm

In some cases there is a connection - Sinatra's mom signed a lot for him early on. Jean Harlow's mom also. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Juha Kakkuri on November 11, 2018 at 6:20am

I don´t count secreterials as autographs. I have, for example, a secreterial Elvis Presley. It´s not part of my autograph collection, but I have kept it as Elvis memorabilia sent from Graceland.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on November 11, 2018 at 6:26am

Marilyn Monroe secretarial signed photos, for example, have value. I agree, they do not fall into the autograph category but are collectible as "in period" pieces.

Autograph collectors, in general, would not be the target audience. But memorabilia collectors would be. Again, as long as the item is being sold for what it is, no problem. The issue becomes one of integrity. It's easy to fool less experienced collectors and puts a blemish on the hobby.

It's still a forgery. The only difference is that is was authorized.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on November 11, 2018 at 9:34am

Agreed, The secretarials everyone received who wrote in to CBS in 1954 to get Honeymooners autographs - I believe those have some value as what they are to the Gleason/Honeymooners collectors. I have a set myself.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on November 11, 2018 at 12:04pm

"...The only difference is that is was authorized...."

And perhaps intent - pleasing a fan with a preprint, Autopen or secretarial is not quite forgery to me, esp with something like the Gleasons 1950's PC's.

Unlike those CD's folks keep preordering that are Autopenned "but handsigned"...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich on November 11, 2018 at 4:01pm

For the most part, secretarials are garbage to most of the collecting community - with very few exceptions. I gather that one of the more notable exceptions would be Neil Aspinall-penned Beatles signatures, though part of that is likely due to Aspinall's significance to the band. 

• ▶ Reply